Custom Search
John Keegan, The American Civil War |
Capsule Summary: Despite the negative comments in the full review, I recommend the book. I especially recommend the book for people like me, who may have had time to read history decades ago, but not since, and have forgotten many details. The book is a great refresher, and on the other end of the spectrum, introduction to those who may not have had much Civil War history as part of their education. The work covers a complex subject as well as any single volume treatment could.
I'm going to start with my criticisms, some serious, some not.
One of Keegan's habits irritated me like sand in one's swim trunks. I have not read his other books, so I do not know if this is a bad habit of his, if he does it for emphasis, or what, but he repeats himself constantly, sometimes using the exact words. Did his editor not point this out? For example, while discussing the battle for Atlanta he mentions the heavy losses suffered by a unit of Union artillery converted to infantry. Well OK, but was it so important that it had to be mentioned twice within a few paragraphs? There are many other examples, some running to several pages which leads one to believe that either Keegan does not respect his reader's intelligence or he is trying to pad his page count. I'm sure an historian of his eminence would not forget how many times he mentioned in detail the North's early hope that many Southerners were against disunion and would not support the Confederacy. If I did not grasp the point (the false hope for a quick end to the war) the first time, I sure as heck did the second or third.
The "Britishisms" are annoying. Keegan had spent a lot of time in America, and should realize that his use of arcane expressions would make the book more difficult than necessary for American readers. After all, it is the AMERICAN Civil War. For example, while discussing Grant's rise to eminence there was something the future commander did not understand but "he soon came to twig." Now, I can (I think) figure out the meaning from the context of the paragraph, but why should I have to?
There was, however, an attempted use of the American idiom that seemed as if lifted from a different book, it was so out of place. Writing of an aging Southern general, he wrote: "The devil dog had a lot of fight left in him yet." Taken out of context of the work, it does not stand out that much, but the use of a slang term applied to the Marines of World War I to a Civil War general just seemed out of place.
Another thing came slowly to irritate. The first few comparisons to the First World War I found interesting. However, the continual interruption of the narrative to make "who cares?" comments about a war a half century away grew very tiresome. If he was trying to impress me with his overall knowledge, he only succeeded in making a usually good read unnecessarily tedious. Any reader who even glances at the jacket will realize that the gentleman is a knowledgeable and accomplished historian and writer.
One final complaint: His description of the fall of Savannah was very misleading. While living there, I heard the story that was passed down through the generations and is backed up by most historians. Sherman was met outside the city by the mayor, other dignitaries and business owners. Sherman was given the key to the city and promised full cooperation with the request that the city not suffer the fate of Atlanta. This was told to me to illustrate the very practical nature of the city's residents, which is evident to this very day.
Keegan got everything else right, as far as I know, and his narratives were often quite insightful. There were times when the armies would fight almost daily, and there were other times when 8-10 months might past between major engagements; Keegan explains this. He also does an excellent job explaining why Stonewall Jackson was shot by his own troops. (They were engaged in battle at the time, several of Jackson's litter bearers were injured by Union fire trying to get him to safety.)
I found his treatment of the war in the "West" (meaning the Mississippi River area) very enjoyable and enlightening. Largely educated in Virginia, I did not get much instruction on that part of the War.
Also well received were his treatments of the naval war, what was happening on the home front, and African-American involvement, especially following emancipation.
And special kudos for pointing out Northern attitudes toward people of color, both during and after the war. The rank-and-file soldier did not think the black man his equal, few cared about freeing slaves, and was fighting to reunite the country. We are all aware of the abject cruelty in the South toward slaves, but I appreciate Keegan's even handedness in addressing the subject. Perhaps there is something to be said for a Brit writing about our war after all.
| All in all, a recommended one volume treatment. |
I have read and highly recommended these: | |
Click here for more of John Keegan's books
 Digg
|
 Del.icio.us
|
 Newsvine
|
 Reddit
|
 Stumble Upon
|
All commentary on this page (except as noted) Copyright © 2009 by Lone Wolf Reviews Webzine and the author. Permission to quote for reviews or articles is freely given EXCEPT for Amazon.com source material; please contact them if you wish to use information from one of their reviews.
